The media myth about the cost of Obama's inauguration

[spanone]

Did you hear that "some are saying" Barack Obama's inauguration will cost "$160 million," which is $100 million more than George W. Bush's last swearing-in? That's the tale the crew at Fox & Friends was telling on January 15. "Why does the thing have to cost so much?" demanded co-host Gretchen Carlson. "I don't get it. George Bush spent $42.3 million and that was just four years ago." She wondered why Obama needed "another $100 million" for his celebration.

The Fox News crew wasn't alone. The Internet and cable news were filled with chatter about the jaw-dropping (and unsubstantiated) number suddenly attached to Obama's swearing-in. But the sloppy reporting and online gossip about the price tag illustrated what happens when journalists don't do their job and online partisans take advantage of that kind of work.

It also highlighted the type of news you can generate when making blatantly false comparisons. In this case, it was the cost of the Obama and Bush inaugurations. The connection was unfair because the Obama figure of $160 million that got repeated in the press included security costs associated with the massive event. But the Bush tab of $42 million left out those enormous costs. Talk about stacking the deck.

The misinformation first arrived in the form of an underreported newspaper article in America, and then one in London. Between them, and thanks to furious transatlantic online linking, the reports gave birth to the story that Obama's inauguration was going to cost nearly four times what the country spent on Bush's bash in 2005 -- that the Obama inauguration would cost almost $120 million more.

http://mediamatters.org/columns/200901170003?f=h_top

[Critters2]

1. Damn! Just when I need to go to bed.

:popcorn:

[TTUBatfan2008]

2. Holy shit...

This was incredibly irresponsible on the media's part. You need to post this in GD: P. People have been comparing apples and oranges while claiming it was an apples and apples comparison. TERRIBLE journalism. So much for the liberal media bias.

[gblady]

3. thanks for....

posting this article...
I hope it gets discussed because many here
were quite upset by the 160 amount...


Mistaken reporting again...
who'd have thunk.

[TheDoorbellRang]

4. What a great find! Needs to be spread far and wide

K&R

[gratuitous]

5. How very, very strange

Since when have the media chuckleheads been worried about the cost of anything? Quick, what have we spent on the invasion of Afghanistan? How about the invasion of Iraq? Is it more or less than the rumored cost of the Obama inauguration?

Yeah, blank looks all around for that, you can be sure.

[spanone]

6. i hope President Obama can overcome the right-wingnut media...this is only the beginning

[Tennessee Gal]

7. Spread this far and wide!

k & r

[mopinko]

8. people who were poutraged about this, but still claim not to be wingnuts

should kick this thread to show that they have some concept of the truth.
if i don't see one mea culpa on this thread, well, let's just say that nothing is gonna get me down today.

[melm00se]

9. the number that I saw

on the last Bush inauguration, including security, was in the $70 million range (http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/20/media_on_inauguration)

from the 5th paragraph from the above link:

Most major outlets stuck to the lower, albeit still unprecedented, figure of $40 million, which the Presidential Inaugural Committee said it hopes to raise from private donors. But a more accurate figure may be $50 million. That's the amount cited by the Washington Times (which is plugged in to GOP circles). But even that number doesn't take into account the nearly $20 million that's being spent for security, putting the real cost at closer to $70 million, instead of the media's preferred $40 million.

and $70 million in 2004 dollars would be the equivalent of $78 million in 2008 dollars.

[robinlynne]

10. I saw that same story on abc news.

[Life Long Dem]

11. Misinformation has been going on strong since Obama won.

It's not getting the attention it should because not everyone agrees with the same misinformation. Meaning the media can spin rumors on something and they'll be a number of people who think it's a good idea, regardless of whether it is true or not. So not everyone will be on-board to fight MSM.

But, this should not include Obama and what he should do to combat MSM.I can't see how he would think MSM's spin, is making our country safe. Just look at the last war for this answer. Unless he feels he can use the divisive spin MSM puts out? This would raise suspicion if Obama plans on continuing to ignore the spin of MSM.

I never questioned what is up Obama's sleeves on MSM, because I didn't want to stir up a hornets nest with Obama and MSM before he is is even President. But since we are within days of swearing in... why not?

[uppityperson]

12. Thank you. Searching for numbers in that, I found these...

"In other words, it's the unsubstantiated Obama cost of $160 million (inauguration + security) compared with the Bush cost of 42 million (inauguration, excluding security). Those are two completely different calculations being compared side-by-side, by Fox & Friends, among others, to support the phony claim that Obama's inauguration is $100 million more expensive than Bush's. "

(clip)
"You read that correctly. The federal government spent $115 million dollars for the 2005 inauguration. Keep in mind, that $115 million price tag was separate from the money Bush backers bundled to put on the inauguration festivities. For that, they raised $42 million. So the bottom line for Bush's 2005 inauguration, including the cost of security? That's right, $157 million."

(clip)
"